A weekly talk show hosted by film critic Christopher Crespo
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | TuneIn | RSS
(Right Click Download Link To Save)
In this Crespodiso Film School BONUS episode, Chris Crespo and Drewster Cogburn talk about the Western genre, and specifically talk about the Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Chris talks a little about all the different kinds of Westerns out there, and there are way more than you would expect.
Oh comedy sequels. Why do you even exist? We enjoyed the original the first time around when it was fresh and new and interesting, we laughed, we had a good time, and when it was all said and done, we told our friends about it and we all had a good laugh together as we recounted our favorite jokes and bits. And then a couple of years go by, and along comes the inevitable sequel, and we all go see it, and it is just not as good. We chuckle, maybe we’re amused throughout, but familiarity breeds contempt and seeing the same jokes repackaged just feeds right into the law of diminishing returns. It’s more of the same, but somehow it is also less. That is the essence of the comedy sequel. That is “Ted 2.”
When “Ted” came out a few years ago, the idea of a foul-mouthed talking teddy bear hanging out with Mark Wahlberg and doing crazy shit was novel, it was ridiculous and absurd and then we saw the movie and we were surprised when it worked so well. But there is a moment in the beginning of that movie in which it is explained that the world got used to Ted and his talking teddy bear status and he faded into cultural obscurity as a relic of a by-gone era (i.e. 1980’s celebrityhood), and when people encounter him, they don’t care as much as they used to. So should anyone be surprised that the movie is the same way? Because here is “Ted 2” and it is less special and interesting this time around because we’ve already seen this. We get it. It is a talking teddy bear and he hangs out with a guy and they smoke weed and love Flash Gordon and consume Bud Light in every other scene. Why are we spending another two hours with these guys?Continue Reading …
By 2009, Quentin Tarantino had already established himself as an auteur director of incredibly hip throwback cinema, all cool dialogue and twisty plots and references to other movies, overly violent and vulgar, films that felt effortlessly old school and contemporary at the same time. But then he released “Inglourious Basterds” and the world saw what happened when Mr. Tarantino actually had something to say.
Movies like “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs” and “Jackie Brown” are very cool and awesome and stand the test of time, but they also don’t actually say much. One is a cool collection of stories, one is at the most about the different faces of ultra manhood in the guise of a failed heist, and the third is an adaptation of a novel that just exists as a cool crime story, with Tarantino throwing shades of 1970’s blaxploitation on top of it all, and they are all good, really good even, but don’t have much to say. But with “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino starts out with a revenge fantasy war western man on a mission movie and slowly morphs it into a story about the power of cinema and how art can combat tyranny as a weapon. It is pretty incredible how this story evolves and the ending works on that meta-level where there is an amazing combination of imagery and theme (you know, real story telling), and it just might be Tarantino’s best movie. And that is something considering he made “Kill Bill.”Continue Reading …
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | TuneIn | RSS
(Right Click Download Link To Save)
In episode 129, Chris Crespo and Drewster Cogburn review Ted 2, and Chris went to a 40th anniversary screening of JAWS.
There are new editions of Billy D’s Death at the Movies, Vox Populi, and Netflix Instant Pick of the Week, as well as a new Dr. Drew’s Two Cents segment.
Also discussed: Jared Leto is weird, we’re getting a lot of Batfleck, 2 Green Lanterns, Wolverine in X:Men – Apocalypse, a Fantastic Four – X:Men movie crossover, Furious 8 updates, Hannibal got cancelled, American Gods is coming, plus much more!
“Dope” has a common and basic skeleton of a story that should be instantly familiar to just about everyone. We’ve all heard stories and read books and seen movies and TV shows about a “good” person stuck in a bad situation, who usually has to resort to something they normally wouldn’t do in order to survive. Whether its a kid growing up in a bad neighborhood or a person working for a shady company or a person stuck with their shitty family, this is a go-to story because it is quite common and often relatable. What sets “Dope” apart is the specifics, the details, the little things that all add up to give this particular movie its own identity.
“Dope” centers on Malcolm (Shameik Moore), a high school senior living in a stereotypically rough Los Angeles neighborhood, where he spends most of his time with his single mom and his two best friends, and with the latter he has a pop-punk kind of band, and they also spend a lot of time delving into 1990’s hip-hop culture, lamenting that this was the golden age of rap music (though the movie doesn’t state it, I bet Malcolm is not a Young Thug fan). After a long set up establishing who Malcolm is and what his normal day-to-day plight is like, we gets himself invited to a club for a local drug dealer’s birthday party which turns into a shoot out which turns into Malcolm unwittingly making off with a couple of bricks of powdered MDMA and a gun. He (and his two friends) then find themselves having to sell the drugs for a local drug dealing big shot so that Malcolm can get a solid recommendation for his Harvard application (long story), and also so they don’t die.Continue Reading …
“Inside Out” is another one of those “it’s for the kids but it’s REALLY for the parents” kind of animated movies, you know, the ones Pixar has excelled at for about two decades or so, the movies that are cute, brightly colored and imaginative in a way that sucks in the young ones and holds their attention, but traffic in ideas that are decidedly the stuff of adults, requiring some life experience and perspective for the themes to really resonate, which rest assured they do. Want to take the kids to a movie about the imminent end of their childhoods? Then “Inside Out” is for you! That’s what I’d put on the poster anyway.
In “Inside Out,” 11-year old Riley moves with her Mom and Dad (because where else is she gonna go?) from somewhere in Minnesota to San Francisco. The move is due to Dad getting involved in some fledgling tech business, with Mom and Riley dutifully coming along, and this all has some negative effects on Riley, who has trouble adjusting to her new surroundings. A pretty dull set up, as far as plots go. But while this story plays out, a majority of the movie takes places inside Riley’s brain; the emotions of Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear are personified as five little characters that “work” inside Riley’s head, looking through her eyes like a giant viewscreen and collecting and collating her memories around the clock and storing them in the right places, with Joy leading the charge, doing her best to ensure that Riley is having a happy life.Continue Reading …
When “The Exorcist” came out in 1973, it shook the world with its bleak, gloomy depiction of exorcism and demonology, a horror film made to an extreme that was not at all common at the time. It helps that not only does this story go to some taboo, dark places but was done so in a very masterful manner, which just made it all hit that much harder. It became common to see people literally fleeing the theaters in tears, having been broken down by this movie about a girl being possessed by a demon and the exorcists called in to save her. It was just too real for them. Something so fantastical and outlandish seemed possible because the movie was so believable.
Since ’73 there have been a few dozen movies featuring demonic possessions and exorcisms, including a few direct sequels and one prequel to “The Exorcist” itself, and with the horror genre really taking off in the 1980’s and arriving at some brutal depths in the 90’s and now in the new millennium, this movie likely won’t have the same impact on people seeing it now for the first time. But even if the events in this movie don’t seem so shocking now over three decades later, it is still possible to appreciate the artistry in making this film. It is incredibly well shot, looks amazing, and the tension and dread build slowly throughout leading up to a pretty explosive conclusion.Continue Reading …
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | TuneIn | RSS
(Right Click Download Link To Save)
In episode 128, Chris Crespo and Drewster Cogburn review Dope and Inside Out.
There are new editions of Billy D’s Death at the Movies, Vox Populi, and Netflix Instant Pick of the Week, as well as our first in-show Dr. Drew’s Two Cents segment.
Also discussed in this episode: Bourne 5 with Matt Damon, Wolverine 3 will be Hugh Jackman’s last, Rob Zombie making a Groucho Marx biopic, Ghostbusters 3 updates, there are three Bermuda Triangle movies in the works, plus much more!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | TuneIn | RSS
(Right Click Download Link To Save)
In this SPOILER bonus episode, Chris Crespo and Drewster Cogburn review Jurassic World.
SPOILER WARNING:
They discuss all the details and spoilers, getting into why they didn’t fall in love with it.
They also rank all the Jurassic Park movies from best to worst.
Enjoy the show.
From 2004, “The Aviator” Howard Hughes biopic starring Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Martin Scorsese is just as much a movie about Hughes as it is a movie about movies, especially those of the ’30s and ’40s, and this whole epic film serves as a huge love letter to a bygone era while also working as a great depiction of a man held back only by his own demons.
Howard Hughes was a man who made a lot of money for himself and used it to the push the limits of what interested, which the 30’s and 40’s often involved filmmaking and aviation, and in both arenas he was constantly pushing for bigger and bolder. This movie starts with him directing his first movie, the huge hit “Hell’ Angels” and ends with him trying to validate his hugely ambitious Spruce Goose monster plane for the US Military which ended up costing more than planned and couldn’t even be completed before the end of the war.Continue Reading …